Challenges to the referee’s actions; Preliminary hearing reading of the allegations requirement; MCR 3.965(B)(4); Plain error review; In re MJC; Requirement to advise the parties of the right to judicial review; MCR 3.913(C)(1); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Prejudice; Due process; Unilateral suspension of parenting time by the DHHS; MCL 712A.13a(13); Children’s best interests

The court concluded that no plain error occurred related to respondents’ challenges to the referee’s actions, and rejected their ineffective assistance of counsel claims. While a plain error occurred when the DHHS unilaterally suspended respondent-father’s parenting time, it found that reversal was not warranted under the plain-error doctrine. Finally, it held that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination was in the children’s best interests. Respondent-mother asserted “the referee erred by failing to read the petition at the preliminary hearing and” several times by failing “to advise the parties that they could seek judicial review of the referee’s findings and decision.” The court noted that MCR 3.965(B)(4) deals with preliminary hearings and “the actual preliminary hearing did not occur on either of” two of the dates cited by the mother. As to the actual preliminary hearing, no “allegation was ever made in this case that respondents were unable to read. Throughout the case, [the] mother was zealously represented by counsel, and she later made multiple pleas of admission to allegations read by the court. Under these circumstances, no outcome-determinative plain error” was apparent as to the referee’s failure “to actually read the petition out loud or obtain a waiver of such a reading.” As to advising respondents of the right to judicial review, a plan error did occur in this regard at the preliminary hearing but the mother failed to show “how her substantial rights were affected.” She did not “explain what she would have argued in her request for judicial review and why such a request would likely have been successful.” As to the suspension of the father’s parenting time, he failed to show “an impact on his substantial rights such that reversal is required. This case took place over almost two years, and the unauthorized suspension of the video visitations lasted a little over a month before the [trial] court issued its proper findings. Moreover, and significantly, [he] participated minimally even when the video visitations were occurring. This was consistent with his sporadic attendance during the in-person visitations” early in the case. As to the children’s best interests, they “were doing very well in their foster home, and the foster parents wanted to adopt them. The children who were old enough to express an opinion wanted to stay in the foster home.” Affirmed.